Epson Stylus 1500w - Missing details at 1440 ppi

[Ink stained Fingers]

I have printed few days ago, a couple of samples at 10x10 cm with 720 dpi! and because I have used the wrong settings (like I did these days) it is missing a lot of detail it translates a blurriness, a 3d image without depth.

Today I have printed at 720 with much better detail than before. Some pictures will look almost as good as 1440

So what - there is still essential information missing - how many pixel does the original image file have ? And how is it generated - is it a photo or computer generated or ?

 

[maximilian59]

Double click what?

As far as I can see, every action is done with a single mouse button click, whether to open the linked file (left mouse button) or open a pop up menu (right mouse button) to then perform a single left mouse button action of some sort like Save As.

Now on Windows:
Did a left klick and the file is shown in Bart's dropbox. Then I choosed "Direkt herunterladen" after klicking on the down arrow. Both files are as TIF in my download folder.
I don't know whats different on your machine.
Cheers,
Maximilian

 

[The Hat]

So what - there is still essential information missing - how many pixel does the original image file have ? And how is it generated - is it a photo or computer generated or ?

Ah yes , but that information seems to be a secret or private and not forth coming and if we got the proper information at the outset we could have save a lot of time answering the simple request, instead of it turning into an unknown conundrum..

Mine opens and is described as a 11.5 Mb Tiff..

click to enlarge..

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

if we got the proper information at the outset we could have save a lot of time answering the simple request,

It could have been that simple.......


As long as there are compression artifacts visible the data file was jpg compressed at an earlier time, and opening such a file and resaving it as a .tiff file won't take those artifacts away. And there is another indicator
for it - the number of unique colors running at about 22 000 in a file which appears to be in grayscale only.
Creating plenty of colors which are not part of an original image is typical for jpg compression as well.

 

[Gubenco]

Hello guys, Sorry for late.

So what - there is still essential information missing - how many pixel does the original image file have ? And how is it generated - is it a photo or computer generated or ?

It is a computer generated image. Starting with this moment I will generate my images at 720ppi (I was planning to have it at 1440 but as we see Epson does not consider such resolution).

I've opened this thread because I was confused about maximum inkjet printer resolution in PPI. I mean the digital image that enters into printer halftoning pipeline or whatever they call it. Therefour it is impossible to reproduce a 1440ppi image on paper.

Of course you can do your tests but al my tests and the very artifact made me starting this thread shows that Epson software resizes the image to 720PPI. This means 3/4 of my detail vanishes.

I should trust @Ink stained Fingers right form the beginning but I didn't. He knows his job.

-- and here is an important information for everyone. If by any chance you have larger than 720ppi image better to rescale it using at least a bilinear but the bicubic algorithm may be better. If you let printer's driver to do the resize for you it will resize the image using "nearest neighbor"! Do not let the printer driver to resample for you unless you need NN method.

I promise I will return here to post updates if by any chance I get news about this but I feel this won't happen any soon. Thank you everyone, I wish you all the best.

 

[maximilian59]

It could have been that simple.......


As long as there are compression artifacts visible the data file was jpg compressed at an earlier time, and opening such a file and resaving it as a .tiff file won't take those artifacts away. And there is another indicator
for it - the number of unique colors running at about 22 000 in a file which appears to be in grayscale only.
Creating plenty of colors which are not part of an original image is typical for jpg compression as well.

I can't see artifacts. At the numbers it may seem like this. What software are you using and what screen? Here is a png made on a old gaming screen with windows viewer and with 500% with Photoshop. The gray pixels are no artifacts. That is how the pattern is designed. This file is not ment to measure physical resolution like the Clark pattern. It's made for viewing a print with the naked eye from choosen viewing distance. If you print it, you will see whether the printer performes right in both directions.

 

[stratman]

I don't know whats different on your machine.

Neither did I until your post. I did not see the Dropbox like you did. The reason: I use a Firefox add on called NoScript that can block certain web content. My default settings with NoScript blocked 2 web elements on the Dropbox page. I could see the JPG image but not the Dropbox elements on the right side of the page. Once I unblocked those web elements I could see the Dropbox and directly download an 11.5 MB TIF image.

Thanks!


As @The Hat would say

 

[stratman]

@Ink stained Fingers - did you give me a Like because I solved my riddle or the PEBKAC?

On second thought don't answer.

 

[The Hat]

@Ink stained Fingers - did you give me a Like because I solved my riddle or the PEBKAC?

On second thought don't answer

Solved the riddle I suspect..

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

On second thought don't answer.

No - I won't tell you that I use NoScript as well....